• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Dark Brown European Ringlets (1 Viewer)

Adey Baker

Member
On various holidays to different European countries over the past few years I've sometimes come across a number of chocolate brown/blackish, medium-sized Ringlet butterfly species. Some, such as Arran Brown are readily identifiable by a distinctive feature ( in that case, a white mark on the underwing, as noted in another thread). Of course, it's not always possible to see all of the features on individual butterflies [especially when one's wife is waiting (im)patiently for you!], so it's always useful if you've got the 'key' features in mind to home in on.

Has anyone been able to 'crack' the code on identifying these species? For instance, species such as Scotch Argus, plus Large, Woodland, Water, Styrian, Stygian, Autumn and Piedmont Ringlets all look nominally similar. It doesn't help that the little book that I like to carry around (Mitchell Beazley Pocket Guide) has reproduced them lighter in colour than in real life!

Below are four different individuals that I photographed on July 19th 2003 near Madonna di Campiglio in the Brenta Dolomites, Italy at about 1500 metres above sea-level. The top right one is a bit(!) blurred, but it shows one with little or no white in the centre of each spot and four spots on the hind-wing. I'm not 100% confident on the identity of any of them!

Adey
 

Attachments

  • ringlet-sp.jpg
    ringlet-sp.jpg
    43.4 KB · Views: 285
Adey, in my field guide to butterflies (european) it gives the name of Scotch Argus Eriba hippomedusa and found in the higher elevations in the Austrian and Italian Alps, hopefully this will answer your question. Nina.
 
These are basically the same butterfly in various stages of maturity according to the multiple pictures I have here, Nina.
 
Nina

Thanks for replies - I think that Scotch Argus is probably right for three of them but the blurred one doesn't have any white in the eye-spots so that's probably something different, although I can't find anything to match it precisely. I was unable to get anything on the upperwing pattern and I couldn't get into a comfortable position to get a sharp shot of the underwing but here's a couple of other shots of it - I must stop posting blurred photos as it's not doing my reputation as a photographer any good!

Adey
 

Attachments

  • ringletpair.jpg
    ringletpair.jpg
    22.4 KB · Views: 257
That one is more like eriba medusa schiffermuller, a variant of the woodland ringlet, more than the scotch argus now I see it more clearly. Any good!! Nina.
 
Thanks, Nina,

That subspecies is not in my little 'Mitchell Beazley' book so I think a relly good field guide has just gone to the top of my Christmas present list for this year!

Adey
 
Have looked at them and say on gallery form where info came from and hope you will agree, they look the same as Adey's, Nina.
 
Thanks Nina, I did consider Erebia aethiops (Scotch Argus) but Erebia Pronoe (Water Ringlet) have a similar range and in particular my book mentions limesone mountains in Bavaria, which is precisely where they were. I personally cannot tell the difference between the pictures of these two species. It is a pity the location didn't rule one of them out. This may have to remain a mystery.

Dave
 
One very good website for European butterfly photos is: http://www.leps.it/ Click on index, (common) and scroll down for whichever species you want.

Several of the dark Ringlet species are illustrated but, maddeningly, not Water Ringlet!

Sometimes photos can be much more useful than paintings, for instance in the shots attached below (another blurred one!) I was having difficulty trying to find something similar until I saw the 3rd and 4th shots on the above website for Yellow-spotted Ringlet. They're nothing like the pictures in my book and whilst they don't make the ID 100% certain, at least I've found something similar!

Adey
 

Attachments

  • more-ringlets.jpg
    more-ringlets.jpg
    18.4 KB · Views: 234
Adey Baker said:
Thanks, Nina,

That subspecies is not in my little 'Mitchell Beazley' book so I think a relly good field guide has just gone to the top of my Christmas present list for this year!

Adey

There's another thread on European butterfly guides somewhere... possibly under the books section. But just to pass on a tip: you can get teh superb Tolman and Lewington guide (Princeton University Edition) from Amazon.co.fr for a fraction of the price of the Collins edition which is hard to obtain anyway. Unfortunately I ordered mine from Amazon.com before I realised I could get it from within the EU! Richard Lewington's illustrations are out of this world.
 
Below are the pictures of Scotch Argus (left) and Water Ringlet (right). In each case the right wing is the underwing. They are from A Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Europe by Higgins and Riley (pub by Collins) 1983.

There is a small brown spot on the WR between the double white spot and single white spot on the top upper wing. This doesn't seem to be present on the SA.

This could mean that your first three pictures, Adey, are the SA and mine are the WR. What do you think?

I must seriously consider getting the Tolman and Lewington book.

Dave
 

Attachments

  • wr-sa.jpg
    wr-sa.jpg
    75.4 KB · Views: 238
Dave,

Yes, I noticed that spot on yours but it could just be variability within the species unless someone can confirm it - my bottom right-hand shot, for instance, clearly shows 4 spots on the upper side of the hind wing which is not present in the Higgins/Riley illustrations for either species!

The silvery band on the underside of the hindwing of my bottom right hand shot, though, looks very good for SA as it seems to taper near the 'top.' Yours is obviously a more worn individual and less distinct in this respect.

To illustrate the variability problem, have a look at the 'leps' site above - the 1st and 3rd shots of Scotch Argus show two different females. On the first that small black spot between the eye spots, like yours, is very obvious whilst in the second it is just the merest speck!

It's at this point that we really need the help of someone with lots of experience in the field. I was hoping that someone on B.F. fitted into this category and would come sailing in with the info we need!

At least these Ringlets sat still long enough to be snapped for eventual identification - some of the higher-Alpine Blues and Fritillaries are complete *******s in this respect!

Thanks, also to Ken for the book info.

Adey
 
Well at least we have all had a good search, and even if we don't necessarily agree, we have had a most invigorating discussion and we haven't fallen out because we all agree that we are no experts in this field, just thrown some interesting ideas about, Regards Nina.
 
This link:

http://www.guypadfield.com/waterringlet.html

Shows a Water Ringlet with the slightest hint of the black spot between the eye-spots

There's also quite a few other European butterfly photos on this site to supplement the 'leps' site. Now, when I win the lottery (somebody's got to!) I'd like to spend a lot of time photographing them to compile the definitive Euro
-butterfly website (OK, I'm dreaming again!)

Adey
 
My 'blurred' one isn't a variant Woodland Ringlet, then!

There isn't a variation on Almond-eyed Ringlet with plain black spots lurking anywhere, by chance is there?

Incidentally, I should have stated that all (except the bottom right 'closed-wing' scotch argus) were in the same area - a grassy area with a few bare patches on the edge of town and next to (mainly) coniferous woodland. Ashort distance away the grass adjoined a ski-slope which thus gave an extension of the grass right up the hill-side.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 21 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top